Report 1143
Report #1143 Skillset: Skill: Lust Org: Sentinels Status: Completed May 2013 Furies' Decision: Solution 4: You will only be able to have up to five people lusted to you at once. If you try to go over that, the person who you've been lusted to the longest (ie the oldest lust) will be removed. Problem: Aside from the effect of Dramaturgy Jealousy, where being lusted onto a person's ally list increases their damage against you, Loralaria's SkySforzando or Tarot Empress, there is essentially no downside for having 'enemies' on your ally list through lust for all except the enemy dependent classes (bards/druids/mages/trackers), and a few enemy dependent abilities. With the persistent nature of lust, this allows people to completely bypass the ally/enemy number limitations when using the Spectacles of Clairvoyance artifact, which provides notice of allies/enemies entering or exiting the area. While I am expecting that Dramaturgy's Jealousy effect will be toned down, I think the lack of a means to remove yourself from being listed as lusted on someone else's ally list outside of domination, especially with lust's effect on Spectacles of Clairvoyance, is enough to warrant a report in itself. 0 R: 0 Solution #1: Have all lusted persons on your ally list cleared on the first of each IG month. 0 R: 0 Solution #2: A new Dramatics ability with a love potion type mechanic, ie. room tick, that removes you from a person's ally list. PERFORM REPUGNANT: Be so reviled, no one will count you as their friend. 0 R: 0 Solution #3: Thoros' solution: Implement new command, DISSOLVE LUST , to remove yourself if listed as lusted on another person's ally list. Player Comments: ---on 4/10 @ 16:04 writes: As a quick example, my ally list shows 160 people, only 5 of whom are non- lusted. ---on 4/10 @ 22:23 writes: I would suggest a solution, rather to REJECT ALL, with a balance loss time dependant on the amount of people you're rejecting. Opposed to Solution 1. ---on 4/11 @ 01:34 writes: I think the dual problem is that some individuals use Lust as a secondary, unlimited ally list, as well as any perceived problem with the relationship of Jealousy/Lust. Do you think REJECT ALL addresses that in a comfortable manner? I guess it makes it harder to find lusted bards who are using it, but you get messages showing they're getting Jealousy's bonus, iirc, so that's not really valid. Hm! ---on 4/11 @ 12:04 writes: While I'm not opposed to a REJECT ALL option (provided it's not forceable if there's to be long balance loss), I'm not so sure that as a solution it addresses the problem I was trying to communicate. Right now it is only the dramaturgist who can control when Jealousy's effect will end. Outside of domination I can't make them reject me to remove myself from their ally list. I listed Empress and SkySforzando just as about the only other examples of where having enemies on your ally list can be bad thing, but there you have control and are able to reject them. The secondary Spectacles issue is like Jealousy's, I can't make someone reject me, so they will always receive notification of my entry/exit in an area bypassing all ally/enemy list management that I think was intended. I know Sol #1 is a bit arbitrary, but with how lust works and its persistent and indefinite nature, it's tricky to provide alternative solution. Having lusted persons count toward your ally limit raises possibility of gaining immunity to being lusted, or would we have to implement being lusted replaces random ally etc? A reset after X time was about the cleanest solution I could think of. ---on 4/12 @ 04:09 writes: Maybe we should consider additionally penalties to lust (ie % chance of failure to leave the room of someone who you're lusted to, less than paradigmatics enthrall), obnoxious and ugly emotes, smooching, kissing, etc regularly when in the same room, and so forth. ---on 4/12 @ 04:46 writes: I'm not in favour of solution 1 simply because it would affect empress too much. It would be pretty obnoxious having to go around lusting all my allies every RL day for a group fight. I'd rather just make it so lusting someone replaces someone on the ally list with them. ---on 4/12 @ 12:37 writes: Or just implant a new command, DISSOLVE LUST. This command will only work for people lusted to you. You can forceably remove someone who is lusted to you. Easy fix to this little problem. ---on 4/12 @ 12:38 writes: DISSOLVE LUST would be the syntax. ---on 4/12 @ 15:03 writes: Solution 2. ---on 4/13 @ 01:37 writes: Solution 3 with the caveat that this new command only be doable if you're in the same room as the target. I'd also prefer that this be a delayed action to make it a bit tougher, but that's personal feeling. ---on 4/13 @ 16:23 writes: @Shuyin: regarding your comment about how sol #1's impact on empress, that's arguably another part of the issue. You don't need to lust allies to empress them, they just have to have you allied. You lusting them just means that they bypass having any question of ally management to get the benefit. I think a quick 'Yo! Ally me if you want me to be able to empress you' reminder before engaging would mean there's little enough impact on empress. ---on 4/13 @ 16:34 writes: That was just an example of how it makes lust management more of a hassle with this change. Another example is that it's already pretty trivial to check for lusts in fights given that checking ALLIES or doing ENEMY (target) requires nor takes eq. Quite a few fighters already check this continually, so having this extra 'safety net' may make maintaining lust for empress reasons would be very annoying. So basically, my stance is that I am hesitant to change lust (in a way that makes things easier for 'victims') with regards to empress given that checking for lust is already pretty easy to do. Solution 1 is just too broad a solution for your problem IMO. ---on 4/13 @ 16:37 writes: Well personally I'm good with lusted persons counting toward ally limit, and lust replacing random ally if already at limit like you were saying you preferred. Didn't think others would be though. Can see what consensus is and change before the submit anyhoo. ---on 4/13 @ 16:49 writes: Though again, the lust/empress interaction is bit different to lust/jealousy since the 'victim' has control of rejecting the lust in the empress case, so I still don't think it would change things all that much aside from not being able to catch people who didn't reject a RL day later with empress. But in any case, to reiterate for clarity, this report looks for way to remove yourself from ally list of -someone else- (the repugnant/dissolve lust options), and questions how lust allows a person to bypass ally limits. ---on 4/14 @ 02:20 writes: Empress is only local area if allied, and continent-wide if lusted. ---on 4/15 @ 15:16 writes: DISAGREE with 1 and 2. Okay with 3. ---on 4/24 @ 16:06 writes: I'm not entirely sure this report is needed, but going with the flow, can we include a balance loss akin to rejecting with solution 3. I think it's important that dissolving a lust has similar repercussions as rejecting or some sort of a delayed effect so that skills such as Jealousy are still viable to use. In addition, can we add a line that lets the target know they lust has been dissolved (for easier tracking, re-enemying etc). ---on 5/8 @ 00:53 writes: I'm not sure this is needed. Opposed to 1 and 2. Would be ok with 3 if the eq is at least as long as rejecting. ---on 5/8 @ 13:58 writes: Solution 3 with the eq use.